updating tests for Reverse-String exercise

[jagdish-15]

Pull Request: Update Test Suite for Reverse-String Exercise

This pull request updates the test suite for the Reverse-String exercise, bringing it in line with the latest problem specification. With this update, all tests for the exercise are now fully synchronized.

[siebenschlaefer]

Did you write an example solution in C that deals with unicode and grapheme clusters?
Do we really expect our students to do that?

[wolf99]

The current tests and example implementation do not handle wide characters, grapheme clusters, UTF, etc. It only handles 8-bit ASCII characters.

So unless this exercise is radically changed then these tests should be marked as not implemented and the failing tests removed.

It mat be a good addition to the track to have an exercise that handles such characters (I don't think we have any other such exercise). But I don't know if this should be that exercise, and I don't think such a change is within the scope of the simple update that was intended.

[jagdish-15]

Hi @wolf99,

I've temporarily commented out these tests for now. If there's a more standardized or preferred approach, please let me know, and I'll make the necessary adjustments.

I was considering using TEST_IGNORE() as an alternative—do you think that would be the right way to proceed?

Apologies for the delay in revisiting this; I was tied up with exams.

[wolf99]

Hi @jagdish-15

Unfortunately TEST_IGNORE() is not suitable as we use this in valid tests that are expected to succeed as a student enables each one in turn (enabling them to use TDD loop to develop a solution).

Instead, because in this track we do not want to include these cases for this exercise, the tests need to be removed completely.
However, we need some way to mark that we have explicitly decided not to include these tests.
Luckily the .meta/tests.tomlfile format allows this 😄

You can see the format details here: https://exercism.org/docs/building/tracks/practice-exercises#h-file-meta-tests-toml
My review suggestions here implement this.

[jagdish-15]

@wolf99

In the last commit you suggested, there was an issue related to the end-of-line sequence, which caused the check to fail. I have now force-pushed the updated changes, resolving the issue, and all the tests are passing successfully!

Please take a look and let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to adjust.

[wolf99]

Merged.
Well done @jagdish-15 !